Some of the biggest news right now on Lifesitenews.com is a story about how St. Joseph’s Catholic Hospital in London, Ontario has been doing “induction” abortions for 20 years! The story is here.

I was especially sickened at how the chief ethicist at the hospital, Fr. Michael Prieur, defended this eugenic abortion practice. He said that they weren’t actually killing the babies, but that they were just taking the babies out and letting them die. What a grand twist!

Dosen’t he understand that, because the intention is to end the life of the baby, they are indeed killing the baby?
Why else are they taking the baby out? Their direct intention is the end the baby’s life, to kill the baby! So they’re doing abortions.

No, of course they aren’t tearing the baby to pieces, like during surgical abortions, but neither does the abortion pill do that to babies. But it is still an abortion pill. Anything that has as its direct intent the ending of an unborn baby’s life is abortion.

What dosen’t he understand?

And this priest is supposed to be a professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter’s Seminary. No wonder our poor seminarians are coming out so mixed up. Being fed these kind of snakey, twisted distortions.

But something that I can’t understand is why these people want to do induction abortions so bad that they will invent whatever it takes to defend themselves, even if it isn’t true. Maybe it would just be easier to kick abortion out? What are they gaining?

One of the grandest and most used of the pro-abortion movement’s arguments is that, if a baby is handicapped before it’s born, or if it is going to die right after it’s born, then abortion is permissable in order to prevent such a horrible thing to happen to the baby. I always explain to them that this does not justify the killing of an innocent person.

They of course come back with the argument that, wouldn’t it be better for the baby to die than to suffer so much? And they also add that the baby will not even know that he is dying, and he will not even know that he ever existed. So it would all work out.

To this, I always respond that, even though abortion would prevent suffering for the baby, and even though the baby may not really conciously know that he exists and is being killed, to do an abortion and thus kill a baby is an act that is directly opposed to the dignity of the baby as a person. Forget the claim that the baby does not feel, will not know he existed, will not have to suffer. We’re talking about the serious wrong and injustice that is done to the inalienable right to life, the great human dignity, of every unborn child, regardless of whether or not their bodies are handicapped.

This is often, I think, a new look at the picture for a lot of people. But until people really understand and hold to this principle, I think that we will continue to fight the battle against the cruel monster of eugenic abortion.

Everyone needs to go back to the dignity that is every person’s because of their souls.

“Fr. Michael Prieur, defended this eugenic abortion practice. He said that they werenâ€™t actually killing the babies, but that they were just taking the babies out and letting them die. What a grand twist!”

This is unbelievable. Surely the bishop of the diocese must do something to re-educate this guy and sort out that hospital.

Anon says:

These procedures are only done in cases of utopic pregnancies and other situations where mothers life is in danger. According to the Catholic Church, aborting the baby’s life is permissable at this time. Rather than killing the baby by less humane means, the doctors surgically remove the baby intact out of respect for the baby’s dignity.

If you wonder why lifesite news is condoned by various bishops across Canada, it is because their focus is increasing readers, not giving the cold hard facts… this article was never read by Fr Prieur until it was published. That is against his rights, and is also part of the reason why he was misquoted several times….

“These procedures are only done in cases of utopic pregnancies and other situations where mothers life is in danger. According to the Catholic Church, aborting the babyâ€™s life is permissable at this time. Rather than killing the baby by less humane means, the doctors surgically remove the baby intact out of respect for the babyâ€™s dignity.”

Anon—

A couple of clarifications:

First, as far as I know, the procedure of early induction, when it’s done, is done later in pregnancy, and not in cases of ectopic pregnancy, which occurs very early on in pregnancy.

In cases of ectopic pregnancy, the ethical options the Catholic Church considers permissible are explained here.

It’s worth emphasizing that applying the principle of double effect (as outlined in the link above) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy — whereby it’s foreseen, but not intended, that an unborn child will die — is *not* an instance of direct abortion.

Thus, it’s wrong to say, “According to the Catholic Church, aborting the babyâ€™s life is permissable at this time.”

Second, the Catholic Church never approves of direct abortion, and, furthermore, the “life of the mother” exception is a smokescreen, as this statement signed by over 480 physicians makes clear:

I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.

The way I read their statement, the reasons for which early induction is being done at the hospital do not meet the criteria in which early induction can be morally justified according to the principle of double effect.